Today’s Goals

  • Looking ahead (proposal, exam review)
  • Mini-Review: Religion
  • Become familiar with the VIA strengths & virtues
  • Understand the background of the strengths
  • Become familiar with assessment of and initial findings on strengths Consider critiques of the strengths

 

Mini Review: Religion & SWB • What is the religion paradox?

Religion is making people happy, yet more people are beginning to drop it

  • When (where) is religion most important for SWB?

During times of difficulty

GWP: poorer countries (where people feel unsafe), US (education is lower, where people feel unsafe)

  • Why (how) does religion contribute to SWB?

Some of the mediators

Gives a purpose in life, social support, more respect

Got more out of religion if you were part of a religious society

  • Which religion produces the most SWB?

None – they are all equal

Not one that stands out as being more associated with happiness than the other

  • How can we resolve the religion paradox?

Religion makes some people happy (when circumstances are not as good)

Religion doesn’t make much of a difference when circumstances are good – aren’t getting anything out of being religious – sensibility

 

Strengths & Virtues Background

(Chapter 1 of book linked in Ares)

  • Similar to general arguments for positive psychology
  • Addresses the ‘2nd pillar’ of positive individual differences

Refer back to 3 pillars of positive experience

Attempt to identify important positive influences

  • Assumes virtue & character essential to the ‘good life’ (cf., Aristotle & eudaimonia)

Refer back to Aristotles approach – the way we evaluate the ‘good life’ There are some things that are valued, and others that are not

 

Comparison with DSM for disorders

  • Classification (not taxonomy per se)

DSM – provides the rules/classification for mental disorders Strengths and weaknesses associated

  • Potential benefits of both – strengths (things wanted to preserve)
    • Common language
    • Directs research & assessment

Helps define things so they can be helped/measured

Aid in assessment o Provides ‘map’ for other institutions

  • Important differences – weaknesses o Categories vs. dimensions

Have something or you don’t – doesn’t follow a continuum (and it should) o Number of constructs

(aspires to) greater validity, more universal

Maximize validity – been sacrificed through reliability Universal: across different cultures

 

Defining Strengths

  • Morally valued (positive)
  • Compared to skills & talents o Perhaps less ‘innate’, but really morality again

Viewing strengths as something that is cultivated

Character strengths are morally valued – good to have them (not just nice to have them) Skill/Talent: potential to not be used, wasted

  • Compared to traits

Ex: the big 5 o Similar as units (relative stability, consistency)

Relatively stable and consistent over time – more or less on average when compared to the opposite o Role for situations

Outdated: trait needs to be available over all situations – always

Known that situations have large influences over traits/personality aspects

Plays a role, even in context of situational differences o content differs (?), breadth

5 traits, 24 strengths

Character strengths more nuanced

  • Hierarchical conceptual structure o Virtues, strengths, situational themes

Virtues: broad things, to be a good person need to have sum of all

Situational Themes: particular kinds of situations elicit particular kinds of responses

Cover similar space – started in different ways (traits vs. strengths)

 

Development of Strengths List

  • Discussions among psychologists
  • Consulted philosophers’ lists
  • Consulted literature & pop culture

Found characters in literature seen as more desirable

  • Consulted institutions (e.g., boy scouts)
  • Looked across cultures

Looking as widely as they could across all philosophers

  • Hoping for universal agreement (except situational themes) Figured cultures would differ on situational themes
  • Criteria for ‘family resemblance’, debatable

 

Classification System

  • Wisdom: curiosity, love of learning, perspective, creativity
  • Courage: honesty (authenticity), bravery, persistence, zest
  • Humanity: kindness, love, social intelligence
  • Justice: fairness, leadership, teamwork
  • Temperance: forgiveness, humility, prudence, self-regulation
  • Transcendence: humor, spirituality, appreciation, gratitude, hope

Virtues: character strengths

 

Criteria for Strengths

  • Contributes to fulfillment o Beyond coping & merely feeling good o Recall eudaimonia

Signature strengths as authentic & intrinsic*

Notion that each person has a couple of strengths they are higher in Authentic to the individual

  • Strengths valued themselves o Beyond outcome; invokes social/moral value

o Compare to ability or talent

Not necessarily doing – but the results

  • Using it does not diminish others o More admiration than jealousy o Criteria for Strengths
  • No obvious, positive opposite o Within reason, e.g., honesty — tact —rudeness
  • Trait-like (stable, consistent) o Note ‘tonic’ vs. ‘phasic’ continuum
  • Distinctive from other strengths o keeps list manageable, combinations possible
  • Has paragons

o Cf., ‘cardinal’ traits

Person is a paragon of x – totally exemplifies them

  • Has prodigies o , multiple intelligences

Strengths that are obvious in children or younger individuals

  • Selective absences o As above, some distinct cause or function (?)

Ex: psychopaths – having a complete absence of 1 (or more) strength

  • Cultivated by institutions and rituals o g., youth activities o Assessing character strengths

 

Assessing Character Strengths

  • Usually self-report o Consider social desirability o But compare other constructs, validity o Adult and youth questionnaire

Adult tends to be quite long

Youth: rephrased to be more understandable, shorter to accommodate attention spans

People need to be willing and able to tell about themselves

Looking for what character strengths individuals are scored higher in

  • Other approaches o Structured interview for signature strengths

Aimed at signature strengths o Content analysis (synonyms, etc.)

Analyze words people use – conduct ‘fancy word counts’

Can be applied into text – twitter feed, etc. (emerging field, not extremely accurate)

 

Initial Findings

  • Internally consistent & stable
  • Agreement with peer reports

What individuals tend to report are agreed with

Supports reliability/validity

  • Similar levels across cultures o Kindness, fairness, authenticity, gratitude (high)

VERSUS

Self-regulation, modesty, prudence (low)

 

Rank order of the strengths tend to be the same across cultures

Similarly, strengths that are rated lower were found to be the same across cultures

  • Age differences (US) o Hope, teamwork & zest (youth)

VERSUS o Authenticity, leadership, appreciation, open (adults)

Younger people vs. older folks

Is this generational or actually age? Would have to conduct longitudinal studies by reassessing the same “youth” generation when they become classified as “old” Cultural differences within culture – generation-wise

  • Two possible dimensions o Heart vs. Mind

More intellectual/mental vs. individual o Focus on Self vs. Others

  • ‘Strengths of the heart’ and life satisfaction o Zest, gratitude, hope, vs. love of learning
  • Predicts ‘best’ job, love, friend, hobby
  • Effects of crisis o Illness and bravery & humor

o 9-11 and gratitude, hope, teamwork, leadership

Look at what goes right – even in difficult circumstances

 

Some Critique

  • Much still to be tested…
  • Application has outpaced research

People tend to take these tests as individual feedback • ‘Structure’ not as implicitly described • How unique is the approach?

o Similar to Big 5 space (DSM vs. personality) o Heritability overlaps other traits o Minor role for shared environment